Talk:Battle of Ayta ash-Shab/Archives/2012/June

Shrike's deletions
Shrike, I’m reverting your deletions. Let me explain why, although we have been through this before (see talkpage archives).

Your position seems to be that anything in the article about the battle of Ayta ash-Sha'b that does not mention this battle explicitly must be deleted. I find this position absurd and completely untenable. Just imagine what would happen if this principle was applied strictly to Wikipedia articles. Of course it is OK to relate to general information about a war in an article about a specific battle in that war. The question is whether it is relevant for the subject of the article. You have deleted relevant information. Your deletions seem to motivated by a desire to hide rather persistent facts from reliable third-party Israeli sources that undermine the credibility of the official Israeli version of the battle.

First you deleted this paragraph: "The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth estimated that around ten local fighters were killed, in addition to an unspecified number fighters from outside the town." This clearly contradicts your stated justification for your deletions, since this is explicitly concerned with the battle of Ayta ash-Sha'b. This Israeli mainstream media source thus confirm what Lebanese sources say about Hezbollah fatalities in this battle. You also broke a link to another footnote.

Then you deleted a reference to a second Yedioth article that clearly states that the main reason why Israeli estimates of the number of Hezbollah fatalities in the war are so much higher than Lebanese estimates (700 vs. 300) is because the Israeli numbers included civilians affiliated with Hezbollah. Most of the world makes (or rather tries or pretends to make) a distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Israel did not do this in the 2006 Lebanon war. Israel specifically targeted individuals and infrastructure related to Hezbollah, irrespectively of whether they had any connection with the military side of the movement. A Haaretz article, also deleted by you, shows that there was a strong suspicion, even in Israel, that official Israeli casualty numbers were exaggerations.

This information is absolutely essential in interpreting the consistent discrepancy between Israeli and Lebanese fatality numbers in this war. This is relevant for every battle or incident during the war. It could be argued that this would be a case of original research if the article drew the unwarranted conclusion that because Israel in general exaggerated its Hezbollah casualty statistics, this was also necessary true in the case of this battle as well. But the article does not do this. It just presents well-sourced relevant facts.

Your second point concerns about the capture of Hezbollah prisoners. Your point seem to be that it is irrelevant for the subject of the article, because it partly concerns Hezbollah prisoners in general. But it puts the capture of the two Hezbollah fighters in Ayta ash-Sha’b in perspective. The capture of the Hezbollah prisoners was an extremely rare event in the war. The two prisoners captured at Ayta represents 50% of all prisoners captured in the war. It is therefore relevant to the subject of the article and it is also well supported by reliable Israeli sources.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again its your WP:OR your cant insert thing that you think that is related to the article is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.You were already told by two uninvolved editors that you shouldn't do a WP:OR. Please read those policies before adding the material back again.--Shrike (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As I explained above my edits have nothing to do with original research. I just quote reliable sources. You may claim that these edits are irrelevant to the topic of the article but I strongly disagree (see above).


 * I am not aware of any warning by uninvolved editors concerning WP:OR. Could you please indicate where I was issued these warnings or withdraw your claim. In fact I'm only aware of one warning from an uninvolved editor and that concerned WP:NPOV:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jokkmokks-Goran&diff=479098560&oldid=477886680#Notification_of_discretionary_sanctions


 * I never understood the specific problem with these edits, and it was never explained to me. It involved two minor edits, one of them in this article. I changed the results of the battle of Ayta ash-Sha'b from "Hezbollah victory" to "Israel failed to conquer the town". This quite ironic because I know that you shared my view that this is a much better formulation. But you never defended me.


 * Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "warning" I say you were told in the WP:RSN.Even if you use WP:RS that doesn't mean you don't WP:OR.You may think that they connected but you have a find a source that actually discuss this in scope of this battle.--Shrike (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "You were already told by two uninvolved editors that you shouldn't do a WP:OR". Where, when and by which uninvolved editors was I told this? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see ,.If you want to continue this discussion please lets do it on your or main talk page.--Shrike (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also can you please specify exactly which original idea is expressed in the offending section that you deleted that is not covered by the sources. I believe the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I never claimed its not covered.Please read again what I wrote.Also you wrong about burden of proof.Please read about WP:ONUS--Shrike (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On burden of proof What_SYNTH_is_not:
 * "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception."
 * But maybe you are no longer claiming that I am guilty of WP:OR? Only WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK? On what grounds? I cannot defend myself if you are continuously changing the grounds on which you are attacking my edits. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I still claim its WP:UNDUE,[WP:OR]] and WP:COATRACK on the grounds I have explained earlier the source should mention article topic.From WP:OR

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."As you sources doesn't even mention the battle it can't be directly related to the topic--Shrike (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Per input of uninvolved editor I am removing WP:OR.--Shrike (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)